Caesar's Messiah Proven

This excellent website belongs to Giles Gaffney, who seems to be the same as our Gilius (based on certain literary parallels I've observed).

I hope we haven't scared Gilius away... I'd like to continue the discussion about possibly updating the complete Flavian Signature in full color, and maybe for peer review.

I noticed that Gilius has been debating with unbelievers over at skeptiko, and was having trouble convincing them even of the Lunatic Jesus parallel. Some people just can't be convinced of anything, I suppose, but even Carrier accepts that one. From "On the Historicity of Jesus":

It would appear this story inspired the general outline of Mark’s entire Passover Narrative. There are at least twenty significant parallels (and one reversal):

1 Both are named Jesus.
2 Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. Mk 14.2 = JW 6.301
3 Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. Mk 11.15-17 = JW 6.301
4 During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. Jer. 7.11 in Mk; Jer. 7.34 in JW
5 Both then preach daily in the temple. Mk 14.49 = JW 6.306
6 Both declared ‘woe’ unto Judea or the Jews. Mk 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309
7 Both predict the temple will be destroyed. Mk 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309
8 Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. Mk 14.43 = JW 6.302
9 Both are accused of speaking against the temple. Mk 14.58 = JW 6.302
10 Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. Mk 14.60 = JW 6.302
11 Both are beaten by the Jews. Mk 14.65 = JW 6.302
12 Then both are taken to the Roman governor. Pilate in Mk 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302
13 Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. Mk 15.2-4 = JW 6.305
14 During which both are asked to identify themselves. Mk 15.2 = JW 6.305
15 And yet again neither says anything in his defense. Mk 15.3-5 = JW 6.305
16 Both are then beaten by the Romans. Mk 15.15 = JW 6.304
17 In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him.
18 . . . but doesn’t (Mark); . . . but does (JW). Mk 15.6-15 vs. JW 6.305
19 Both are finally killed by the Romans (in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery). Mk 15.34 = JW 6.308-309
20 Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. Mk 15.34 = JW 6.309
21 Both die with a loud cry. Mk 15.37 = JW 6.309​

I think Carrier is painting himself into a corner, because the entire Flavian Signature is stronger than any of this (and incorporates the Lunatic Jesus as one of forty-seven). The coup de grace will be if / when we do the math on the verbatim parallels.

I need to update that site sometime but haven't found the motivation. New Root and Branch drained me - Joe is a genius to spot that.

My techniques of convincing the public have improved greatly since skeptiko (I may revisit there sometime), but unfortunately I've unearthed some fundamental home truths about people's inability to face the evidence, and ultimately, the nature and true extent of evil in this world. Now I know why the Flavians talk so much about "demons" because the majority of people are carrying them around to this day. Therefore, no amount of revision or improvement in techniques is going to convince more than a tiny percentage: it wasn't the oligarchs who killed JFK - it was America!

I read through the discussion at international skeptics (ex-Randi). Among the critics, the most thoughtful ones went straight after the multiple-comparisons problem. I'm still thinking about how to do the math. It will be most convincing if we can do it in Greek, with an ancient Greek corpus for word frequency statistics. Something to get started on after I finish my taxes, sigh...

Flavius Josephus testified at the end of his "Vita"
that he saved one of three "friends" (Essenes?) hanging on the cross by the help of a medicine.

Supposing that this "testimonium" is recorded in a version X of Mark (Flavius Joseph Bar Mathattias <=> Joseph Arimatthea)
( see point of view about this item of R. Carrier versus that of the Dutchmen Pierre Krijbolder).

Supposing that Vita is written in CE 90.0 by F. Josephus

=> version X of Mark is written after CE 90.0
or
=> there was a transfer of information between F. Josephus and the author of version X of Mark before CE 90.0 ( in CE 70?)

Dear Jerry
It's possible that the Hellenist-Judaic gospels date to the 70th's BUT ALSO can date after Simon Kochba's revolt (136)?
I' think that the theory of Joe is too hypothetical . He is given an x- interpretation of what really happened to cognitively resonate with his interpretation.
The Synoptic Gospel writers has use Josephus' works? It's hard to improve the contrary in a mathematical way. From the content, it proves Roman influence.
I really don'think Joe has the wright explanation, like all other brothers of Christian churches.
He can be filling the same in as readers of the original source. The all have used the same typologie;
But that explain nothing about the origin of the relationship between the myth of Toledoth's Yeshu(Adopted by a Jude Hellenistic-Roman mystery cult(ure) with Philo-istic concepts-) <-> Messiah Warrior (Jude-Parthian) and the Roman "Jesus.
I wait on the final conclusion of the , for me, greatest bible history examinators: ROBERT MAC PRICE an the AUTHOR of "WWW. Lost-History.com (Christianity)"
So Jerry, the Flavian Dynasty exterminated in 96. I do think that they used Josephus work's after this date, (supported by the Romans, seen the political situation.
Personal supposed conclusion: Joe 'theory is wrong, he is doing like the christians; fishing in the wrong period.
Greetings

Florimond (Magus)

Ps. I don' know one who has died of a different opinion( Except in dictatorships)I

Thanks for the link to lost-history.com, which is a great resource I hadn't seen before. The conclusion section to his "New Quest for the Historical Jesus" concludes that this person lived in the 1st century BC. My view: it might very well be that some historical person lived in the first century BC and inspired various tales in the Talmud and elsewhere. But this person's biographical details are so far removed from Gospel Jesus, that the latter might as well be viewed as fiction. If such a person existed, I don't see this as a contradiction to Joe's view, or a contradiction to the mythicists in general.

It's hard to point to anything in the canonical Gospels that shows any knowledge of anything that happened after ~80 AD. Lost-history.com gives a table at http://www.lost-history.com/gospels.php which gives a range of dates for the canonical Gospels, listing Matthew as early as 80 AD, Mark as early as 73, Luke as early as 80, and John as early as 90. On the other hand, I understand that it's impossible to prove that any of these works existed much before the end of the 2nd century.

Joe's argument that the Gospels were written by the Flavian court is based entirely on literary / typological analysis. That sort of analysis can never be considered a 100% sure thing, there's always room for doubt. But where's the argument for believing that Joe is certainly was wrong, and that the gospels couldn't have been written before Antoninus Pius? (Antoninus might well have done some redaction work...)

Barbiero thinks that the Christian bishop of Rome didn't get the title of Pope (Pater Patrum) until the death of the last Mithraic pope, Vectius Agorius Praetextatus, in AD 384. But before that, he says that Christianity and Mithraism were basically two sides of the same coin. The hoi polloi, women and children worshipped in Christian churches, while the men also gathered in the basement for supplementary Mithraic rites.

In case anyone is reading this thread and wondering what ever happened to that project: it was interrupted when Matthew Josephson came along with his book "Revealing the Man of Sin", which showed that there are large numbers of very significant "off-diagonal" (out of sequence) parallels between Josephus and the Gospels. This basically destroyed my scheme to demonstrate statistical significance for the on-sequence parallels. The existence of all these parallels might also be statistically significant. But a lot of the off-sequence ones are purely conceptual, and as such, not so easy to support a mathematical analysis. There might very well be another overarching pattern, but Josephson wasn't sure what it might be. I haven't had time to sort this out yet.

So Jerry, the Flavian Dynasty exterminated in 96. I do think that they used Josephus work's after this date, (supported by the Romans, seen the political situation.

Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why the Flavian Dynasty being "exterminated" in 96 would be relevant?

For some reason, it was the Flavian's imperial symbol, the anchor and fish, which was the Christians' ubiquitous symbol for centuries till displaced by the cross. I wonder why this was done, perhaps to hide the now embarrassing association with the Flavians?

Why was the Flavian name, at least, so honored for such a long time? Including by Constantine, who also placed his pagan arch in symbolic support of Titus' Arch and Vespasian's Colosseum?

With Titus' Arch, the general historical takeaway is narrowly that of the clear demonstration of the Roman (globalist) triumph over the 'racist', nationalist Jews du jour. Yet Flavio Barbiero's discussion points out that it was the Jewish Hasmoneans, Josephus' Maccabees themselves, who dealt with the Romans to enable their survival, and in reality, their thriving within the new world order that had been created, and would spread throughout Europe. How did they thrive? One way was underground as the founders of the cult of Mithra. Shocking, 'Jews' running an underground pagan cult? Next, will we be asking whether the Pope is Christian?

The 'good' Freemason, George Washington, is still revered by American Christians today as the esteemed father of their 'most' Christian Nation. George's Norman ancestors, shortly after conquering England (1,000 years after Jerusalem was conquered) decided to go rummage around under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, allegedly in search of important goodies, hidden for 1,000 years.

Barbiero asserts that there is some distinct connection between these elite peoples and times, and thus it seems asking about the extermination of the Flavians, or any other dynasty, to be irrelevant. One should be thinking more in terms of a 'corporation' than as 'dynasties' as the operating vehicle through time. In this case, a sub rosa, de facto corporation of related elite septs who are most happy to let the hoi polloi squabble amongst themselves, with their various Identity Neuroses, about their relative closeness to God, Jesus, and such. Once the Drumpf Dynasty has been 'exterminated', the corporation will go on, bigly.

Before : I'm educated as a classical musician, after high school by the Jesuites(Greek-Latin)... and a earn from my duties this days at a skeptical freethinking university as a bookkeeper.At his days I'm learning and practicing counterpoint and fugue inspired by the Leonardo Da Vinci of the [Baroque/...] music: J.S Bach.My goal is writing a kind of "Passion of the Truth"( Since there was told to me that Santa Claus do not exist.)
I'm a novice in this matter who resonate still with his current (non)knowledge....
Anyway, thanks , I'm learning a lot by your site! Let's argue!

Your answer :
Thanks for the link to lost-history.com, which is a great resource I hadn't seen before. The conclusion section to his "New Quest for the Historical Jesus" concludes that this person lived in the 1st century BC. My view: it might very well be that some historical person lived in the first century BC and inspired various tales in the Talmud and elsewhere. But this person's biographical details are so far removed from Gospel Jesus, that the latter might as well be viewed as fiction. If such a person existed, I don't see this as a contradiction to Joe's view, or a contradiction to the mythicists in general.

I follow the idea of R.M.Price, if I understood well, the superposition from myths on myths.
Personal intuitive idea: ; Onias the Circle Drawner -> Yeshu Ben Periachia->Serapis the good shepherd/Teacher of Righteousness(a book or a person ? See Sikhs?- Spouter of lies = personification of a different attitude? / (Essenes-Therapeutics) -> Samaritan(Some of the Gentiles?) - Simon Magus(myth?);
All reactions to the "orthodox Hebrew faith-morality versus Hellenian(cynic-neo platonic) and Parthian philosophy/morality, early Mithraism and other mystery cults, spiced with social power (and military) interests.
This is not perse a contradiction versus Joe's view, but it can just indicate the origin of the used sources/origin from the synoptic gospels,
who can be used by the authors of the synoptic gospels eventual without direct intercession of Romans.

Your answer :
It's hard to point to anything in the canonical Gospels that shows any knowledge of anything that happened after ~80 AD. Lost-history.com gives a table at http://www.lost-history.com/gospels.php which gives a range of dates for the canonical Gospels, listing Matthew as early as 80 AD, Mark as early as 73, Luke as early as 80, and John as early as 90. On the other hand, I understand that it's impossible to prove that any of these works existed much before the end of the 2nd century.

If this dating is right then i will refer to my first e-mail:

Dear Sirs
Flavius Josephus testified at the end of his "Vita"
that he saved one of three "friends" (Essenes?) hanging on the cross by the help of a medicine.
Supposing that this "testimonium" is recorded in a version X of Mark (Flavius Joseph Bar Mathattias <=> Joseph Arimatthea)
( see point of view about this item of R. Carrier versus that of the Dutchmen Pierre Krijbolder).
Supposing that Vita is written in CE 90.0 by F. Josephus
=> version X of Mark is written after CE 90.0
or
=> there was a transfer of information between F. Josephus and the author of version X of Mark before CE 90.0 ( in CE 70?)
Sincerely Yours,
Florimond

If supposed that the writing dates of the gospels are right and the second conclusion is also right,
then we can conclude that Joe's theory, in his essence, makes a lot of sense,... but I note quite sure about the dating;
I still have to read R.M. Price 's "The Pre-Nicene New Testament" ... and other literature about it, so the first conclusion makes still sense..

Your answer :
Joe's argument that the Gospels were written by the Flavian court is based entirely on literary / typological analysis. That sort of analysis can never be considered a 100% sure thing, there's always room for doubt. But where's the argument for believing that Joe is certainly was wrong, and that the gospels couldn't have been written before Antoninus Pius? (Antoninus might well have done some redaction work...)

Barbiero thinks that the Christian bishop of Rome didn't get the title of Pope (Pater Patrum) until the death of the last Mithraic pope, Vectius Agorius Praetextatus, in AD 384. But before that, he says that Christianity and Mithraism were basically two sides of the same coin. The hoi polloi, women and children worshipped in Christian churches, while the men also gathered in the basement for supplementary Mithraic rites.

My personnal reaction:

I think that this typologie can be the product of the following writers, after reading the earlier versions.
Thus there are questions about the system of measuring of the measured object.
Each of the four canonical gospels are a moral directional reaction to the previous ones, independently of the date the first gospel is written.
This is what R. Carrier and R.M. Price and other scholars has concluded, and that's the relationship between these gospels, I think; this does't resonate with Joe's view.
This is my argument to say that Joe's theory is doubtfully, in mine current opinion,not the right one.

I found on the internet description of a Mitraic relief with the names of the so-called first popes... , strange...

Conclusion: This matter is a very complicated issue to analyse, a simple explanation is not implied easily.

Some questions:
Were The Flavians not Mithraic/Serapian?
Is Mithraism/Serapianism not been adopted as Christian by regressive interpretation of Christian history writers?
What is the difference between Chrestus (Publius Cornelius Tacitus) - the Righteousness one, and Christus-Messiah-The Anointed?
What is the difference between Chrestus (Suetonius) - the Righteousness one, and Christus-Messiah-The Anointed?
Was Nero cruel or soft culture minded? And killed somebody as a "softy" found "guilty" by Flavian and/or Nerva Antonine propanganda
writers?
Were the so-called persecutions of Christians not persecutions of a split sect of extremist Chrestos-Righteousness Teacher-Essenes and
were they a "fifth" sect Josephus would not write about, because he lived a time with them?

I agree with you that there are some respects in which each gospel was written as a reaction to the earlier ones. Also, I would say that they were written for different audiences, and most likely they were originally in different languages. Mark was in Latin and spoke to the Romans; Matthew, in Hebrew for the Jews; Luke/Acts, in Greek for the Hellenistic Gentiles; and John, significantly later than the others, providing an update for everyone.

I'm not sure if Joe would disagree with any of this analysis. The key point is that all the Gospel authors show the same very high level of interplay with themes from Josephus, and all share a pro-Roman viewpoint.

It would certainly be convenient for our thesis if the Flavians were Mithraic as well as Christian. But I don't know of any evidence to that effect, do you? Maybe symbolism on Titus' arch could be interpreted as Mithraic? But, I disagree that Christian writes adopted Mithraism as their own. On the contrary, they generally attacked it as a demonic imitation, right? Do you know any exceptions?

I think it's very possible that there was a Roman imperial mystery religion that worshipped Chrest or Chrestus as a Greek or Latin rather than Jewish deity, and that Tacitus, Suetonius and/or Nero might have been intentionally exploiting the confusion between Chrest and Christ. And I wouldn't be surprised if Jewish nationalist worshippers of Christ were often fed to the lions. But it's very hard to come up with convincing evidence for these claims. Joe has enough trouble getting anyone to look at the typology linking Josephus and the Gospels, and that argument is rock solid compared for any of the speculation we're indulging in here.

For whatever reason, Price and Carrier think they can dismiss, disparage and ignore Joe's typology, and then go off and reach their own conclusions based on far more tenuous evidence. For that reason, we don't agree that they are the "greatest bible history examinators".

Data:
The Essene cult (... James Chrestos, an Teacher of Righteousness) stopped after the destruction of the temple , they choose finally in the foregoing days the "zealot way".
Josephus(Herodian?) understood and testified that the coming of the warrior Messiah was an utopy.
The Samaritans; Hellene (Cynics<=> circumcision?) and Mount Gerizimians , plus Herodians and Judean Sadducees collaborated with the Romans against the "fundamental" Judea Jews.

Development:Momentum 1: destruction of the 2nd temple: (on demand of ...? <-> Titus)
There was to find a way by the Romans and collaborators to break the religious/military fundamentalism of the Pharisean Jews (and Essenes?).
So they find out the Pauline Jesus way: transposition of the cult of the Samaritan Simon Megas (Magus) the heavenly Jesus(Isaiah?),
combinated with Isaiha's legend, Cynic, Philo's and Essene philosophy, was the first step to create an anti-strict Law movement by ...??? => (creations non-"synoptic"cynic gospels)
Consequence: developments of local sects by lack of a supervising central (Temple-) religious administration.

In a world where at least 1 person on 3 was a slave the "essene-philo-serapian-simonian-mithrian" message was a branch to hold on.
This can explain the expanding succes of a well purposed created faith: "christianism"?
What Ptolemeus has done with his Hellene-Egyptian god Serapis for Alexandria, has been copied by the Romans? And after by the Arabians?
Romans had enough trouble to fight the Parthians and Germans to get to much trouble from the Judean zealots.
Hellenes, Samaritans, Babylonians and Herodians were living in the same area and they had sure not the same interests as the Strict-Law Judeans.
Josephus "War" was finally (partial) a story of a civil war and at the end, mixed with Roman invasion..., and (partial) his "Antiquities" was a essay to understand it.

Everybody can try to find history in literature, but I think the nearest truth is to find, the thepolitic circumstances of an era to get the most plausible explanation.